Democrats often say they want a “uniquely American solution” to overhauling health care, but Rick Scott sees them heading in a different direction.

Within a month, Scott’s Conservatives for Patients’ Rights will release a documentary illustrating what he describes as the perils of public health care in Great Britain and Canada. He’s trying to discredit the public insurance option, an idea supported by many Democrats that would force private insurers to compete with a government plan.

“If we are going to have a government-run health care system, how does that impact individuals?” Scott asked last week in an interview. “What is it like, what are the issues you deal with? And on other side, what are the benefits?”

The film will feature people affected by the Canadian and British health care systems, Scott said, and the interviews will “most likely” make it into TV ads.

Proponents of the public plan say comparisons between U.S. and foreign health care won’t resonate at a time when many Americans are desperate for lower insurance costs. Not to mention, there are plenty of horror stories to highlight about health care in this country, they say.

The focus on foreign health care marks the next phase in a six-week-old effort to shape the debate by Scott, a wealthy health care entrepreneur from Florida. A Scott aide has circulated a Daily Mail story about British Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologizing in March for conditions at a government-run hospital, which had 400 unexplained deaths.

Scott has pledged to invest at least $5 million of his own money, and his group has begun receiving donations from individuals and corporations — although he’s declined to disclose names. Because Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is incorporated as a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 nonprofit, it isn’t required by law to release donor information.

Lanky and soft-spoken, Scott favors a limited-­government, free-market approach to medicine that focuses on four pillars: choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility.

He sat down with POLITICO to discuss his game plan:

You’ve met with more than 20 lawmakers on the Hill. Who are you finding to be allies?

We are meeting with Republicans and some Democrats. We are not really saying, “You are an ally, or not.” We are saying, “Look, this is what I am doing and this is the data and if there is a way I can be helpful.”

My whole goal is I believe we ought to have health care reform. But my belief is let’s don’t change our whole system; let’s deal with the issues at hand.

What can we do that helps health care costs go down? What can we do to make sure we deal with the uninsured? Those are the big issues. Let’s don’t change the whole system for people that are happy with their existing coverage.

Are you providing the only source of funding for Conservatives for Patients’ Rights?

I started by myself, but people have started funding. I did it myself at the beginning because it is what I believe, and I think it is hard to get people to ever ... do something with you if you don’t stick your own neck out. So that is what I did, and now I have a lot of support.

Who else is funding the organization?

I told people I am not disclosing their names. But there are lots of people who believe the same way we do.

Are they mostly individuals or corporations?

It is both. ... The bigger dollars will be companies.

Are there companies giving money that are at the table talking with the Democrats?

How far do you want to go? (Laughs and refuses to answer.)

You lost control of the Columbia/HCA hospital chain in 1997 following a Medicare investigation. How do you respond to criticism that you come to the fight with some baggage?

I started with $125,000 and built at the time the largest hospital company, and I did that for 9½ years. We had a great run. We had 343 hospitals, 135 centers, took care of over 130,000 patients a day. We did a good job on outcomes.

The hospital industry was under investigation, probably starting in the mid-’90s. So we ended up with an investigation, and the board decided that someone else could run the company better. So I left, went on vacation, changed my life.

Do you see any circumstance in which the creation of public insurance option is agreeable?

I haven’t seen how you can do it. But shoot, I would love to support a bill. I would rather support things than oppose things. So, sure, I would like to. But I don’t know how you do it.

I am not the smartest guy in the world. I’m sure there are other guys who have thought about this more than I have. I just don’t see how you do it. I don’t see how you go down the path. If you have a government plan, you crowd out the private sector. If you run out of money, you’ve got to ration things by price, you ration things by access.

How would you cover the uninsured?

It depends on who you are dealing with.

There are 40 percent of the people who make more than $50,000, so is that an issue? They can afford insurance. You’ve got the illegal immigrants, so that is supposedly 8 [million] to 10 million people. And then you’ve got the chronic uninsured and the people who are just between jobs. I would do each piece.

Who is the most important? Who is the biggest issue?

It is the chronic uninsured because they can’t get insurance. I believe the best way to take care of them is through high-risk pools funded at the state level. ... If you do allow people to get the same tax breaks as employers get, you are going to start having a significant impact on the uninsured who are just between jobs. ... I would incrementally try to solve problems. ... The people that have the money who don’t want to buy insurance, I don’t think you can do anything about that.

Would you be satisfied with the status quo if Congress fails to pass a health reform bill this year?

If the option is a government-run system or the status quo, I will take the status quo. ... If you’re going to single-payer vs. the status quo, I think most Americans are going to pick the status quo.